Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name (usually not your first and last name), your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:

Password

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:

Confirm Password:

Email Address

Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:

Insurance

Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

User Name

Remember Me?

Password

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.

Additional Options

Miscellaneous Options

Automatically parse links in text

Automatically embed media (requires automatic parsing of links in text to be on).

Automatically retrieve titles from external links

Topic Review (Newest First)

09-12-2012 04:05 AM

farna

There are plenty of other times when cars all seemed to look the same, then a big change occurs. It's hard to tell the difference between 1920s cars -- but they did have different grille shells. A side profile? Hard to tell -- unless you really know the cars. Late 30s are a bit better, but some are close. I'm not talking about Cadillacs and Lincolns, more like Chevys, Fords, and Plymouths... the every day cars.

The real idea of the "world car" is one model that can be sold world-wide with only minor differences. Ford tried it first with the Fiesta. Chrsylser came close with the Omni/Horizon. Don't recall GM ever having one that worked. The new Ford Focus is supposed to be their latest, and seems to be working. We've sort of "caught up" (or digressed to?) Europe, it seems, in styling and economy needs. Gas is still at least half again over there what it is here, sometimes twice as much, but we are getting more fuel economy minded.

09-11-2012 08:34 PM

66GMC

Yep, things were a little different back in the days of "The big 4".

Since the advent of the "world car" philosophy, which really amounted to putting Ford Badges on Mazda's, GM badges on Isuzus, Suzuki's etc, etc, combined with things like Chrysler's take-overs and GM bailouts ... the lines have really gotten blurred.

When you really stop and think of it all, this really is nothing new ... just evolution and history repeating itself.

Ironically, we have a decade-old thread being revived ... but the theme remains the same.

09-11-2012 08:16 PM

jessedenny47

who are they foolin

Come on now none of the modern cars have an ounce of personality. The classic old cars had personal personality. Mopar, Ford Chevy or Jaguar none of these have anything over any car made before 1972. So Mopar acn have AMC if they want I say we go back to cars that get 10 mpg and look good.

09-11-2012 04:06 AM

farna

Renault never wholly owned AMC -- they only had a 46% interest. That was controlling interest though. Chrysler bought AMC outright. They purchased Renault's 46% then made stock trades for the remaining outstanding stock.

Renault originally only owned something like 15%, with the option to increase share to 25-30%, but not controlling interest (I'd have to look up exact numbers!). That deal fell apart as the 4x4 market did shortly after the deal in 1980 (it didn't pick back up until the new smaller 4x4s came out, especially the XJ Cherokee). The 4x4 market had been propping AMC up and they knew it wouldn't last long, and needed a small car partner with some capital to survive. Renault bought more share to protect their investment, and when AMC's cash cow went belly up they had no choice but to let them.

09-10-2012 07:16 PM

BOBCRMAN@aol.com

If you go to the MoPar museum on the Chrysler corporate complex. AuburnHills, Mi. You will not only see AMC cars on display. They have Hudsons. Also claimed to be part of Chrysler history. I was amazed to say the least.

09-10-2012 05:04 PM

LATECH

AMC was bought by RENAULT before Iaccoca bought it for chrysler.
pretty ironic.

09-09-2012 05:00 PM

farna

Oh, most car companies are "related". AMC has more Mopar relation than you think! For one, Walter P. Chrysler used to work for Charles Nash (founder of Nash, which later bought out Hudson to form AMC). Chrysler's first automotive job was working for Nash when Nash was president of Buick in 1911. Nash resigned when Durant got control of GM again, as Nash didn't like the way Durant ran things. Nash bought the Thomas B. Jeffery company (who made the first Ramblers) and formed Nash Motors in 1916. Chrysler stayed on to run Buick through 1919. Chrysler Corporation was formed in 1925.

Charles Nash kept in touch with Walter Chrysler over the years, and they obviously still held each other in high regard. When Nash decided to retire in 1936, he asked Chrysler for a recommendation for his successor. Chrysler suggested George Mason, who was running Kelvinator at the time. Mason was interested, but didn't want to leave Kelvinator. Apparently Nash was impressed, and trusted Chrysler. He simply bought Kelvinator and merged the two companies in order to get Mason!

Could you see one of the Ford execs advising GM on who should take over??

08-01-2012 08:17 AM

MARTINSR

LOL, I am an outcast even to the AMC crowd because I drive a Rambler! LOL

I know one thing, these days, today, 8-1-2012 the lines between companies, all auto makers is so friggin gray it's crazy! I received some parts yesterday for a Suzuki sedan and the bumper was wrapped in a very proudly labeled "Genuine GM parts"! LOL, With Chrysler owning Mercedes, and Ford owning Jaguar, come on it's a different world.

Personally, in my world AMC is AMC and not Mopar.

Brian

08-01-2012 08:12 AM

Mojo56

Can a Spirit RT be a MOPAR as in the OP's screen name? I hope not.... well maybe but just barely.

07-31-2012 02:25 PM

poncho62

One poster was right, this belongs in the lounge, not the body forum. I dont think it was a real serious discussion to start with......

AMC made cars that were different, as did Studebaker and a few others.....Part of the reason they arent around anymore.....shame

07-31-2012 11:03 AM

cobalt327

Quote:

Originally Posted by amx

mopars were rust buckets straight from the factory, AMC should have lived and MOPARS resigned to history

Real cute.

Besides this thread being from '03 w/another life given to it in '08 and now 4 years later it rears its ugly head once again- your post has about as much usefulness/relevance as the proverbial teats on a boar.

07-31-2012 10:49 AM

amx

mopars

Quote:

Originally Posted by poncho62

No...AMCs are not MOPARS...........But one thing is for sure....They were better than MOPARS.....in my opinion anyways...........

mopars were rust buckets straight from the factory, AMC should have lived and MOPARS resigned to history

09-18-2008 07:48 PM

poncho62

No...AMCs are not MOPARS...........But one thing is for sure....They were better than MOPARS.....in my opinion anyways...........

09-18-2008 07:44 PM

345 desoto

Well if AMC's are Mopars, then I suppose you could say Maserati's are, too...

09-18-2008 07:28 PM

Bee4Me

Just be glad you don't own an International.
God only knows where they "belong".
Just imagin an AMC car show..........
Lucky to have a "Runner up" for the trophy.
I dig AMC's so don't get me wrong,but they deffinetly had their own gig.
I don't consider them Mopars as well as M's but if they want to show up and compete,let the best car win. Anybody who puts the time and effort into a great car deserves the spot.

This thread has more than 15 replies.
Click here to review the whole thread.